https://assets.performance.gov/APG/files/2023/june/FY2023_Ju... states on page 5 that they're aiming to cut fatalities in half from 8.9 per 100M passengers in FY 2009 to 4.4 fatalities per 100M passengers in FY 2025. (It looks like they were doing way better than that goal.) "As low as reasonably practical" (ALARP) seems to be the term for aviation, which is very clearly not a zero fatalities goal.

> You could ask: is it _worth_ making it that safe? But we don't ask that. We just make it that safe.

They... Don't? Aviation accidents continue to happen and they will continue to happen. They've decided that a positive number of fatalities is worth it not because they want anyone to die, but because they know that perfection is impossible. You can't achieve it, and you can't know that you've achieved it.

I feel like that's a pretty standard expectation, even though we all know that the commit history can be 50% "fix bug -> fix bug try 2" and good documentation is often missing.

I'm not trying to be anti-AI snide. Having it write tests, having judge agents, reviewing every PR? I'm legit curious.

This doesn't address how the cost of safety related procedures versus the cost of risks mitigated is calculated (which is way harder than saying "some") so that the buyer can actually know what "some" cost is.

It's also not addressing the parent comment's point: the bad outcomes in aviation tend to be very impactful (both in human safety and financially), so the tolerance for mistakes is way lower.

Compared to cybersecurity for a brochureware website, where it takes a far larger stretch to go from "security incident" to "someone's dead". (Also, people in cybersecurity aren't going to accept "it has some cost, and you might buy it if it's not too expensive".)

Are the banks currently being stress tested? Is the testing honest?

Is anyone evaluating the potential impact to the other funds? Or are people being sidelined if they're not on the bandwagon, given that the non-AI market is in overall decline? Are pensioners _not_ going to receive help if an AI collapse tanks their retirement, despite them having basically zero control over the investment?

Their target market is people who need to fix something quickly or get some industrial supply item tomorrow so work isn't stopped.

Massive corporations save money via the end user by taking a chainsaw to customer service. Large tech companies (and many other industries) will just quietly fuck the regular customer over because they can't profitably do customer service at scale. Even Amazon's effectively no questions asked return policy is a band-aid over the forgeries and trash that fill their hyperscale market.

If you have a problem with an item that Mcmaster sends you, they're going to go have a stern talk with the manufacturer. They sell reliability, not race to the bottom capitalism.

(I've also heard that they really take care of their employees. People in jobs that are automated away are always retrained; they'll pay for college with no qualifications, because education is good even if they don't directly benefit, etc.)

I don't know why that decision, explicitly founded on "making warrantless surveillance too easy violates the intent of warrants" is being used as toilet paper.

That's to say nothing about opinions of open source that rival early 2000s Microsoft.

For old ass critical software and hardware, the org can always have a backlog of hardware and contingency plans (paying someone to fix the hardware, paying someone to create a fully certified and modern solution..) for when they start running out of parts.

An acquaintance doctor in vet med was pitched 10% ownership in a practice buyout; PE would do business management. The doctor countered with the PE company getting 10%, since they won't be doing any medicine. The PE company declined.

I'm not arguing with you; I'm legitimately curious what happened to that model and why PE has swooped in as more attractive to doctors. Maybe it's the payout and/or the fact that they don't have to handle business owner decisions at _all_ anymore?

I already hear the downsides frequently from someone whose work is directly affected.

A guest on a podcast said, in response to open source and community websites being flooded with AI scrapers, "the internet has always had people scanning websites; get over it".

I still respect the podcast, but that was such a shitty take. The difference between before and now was that those websites started closing their doors instead of paying the increased hosting feeds.

I'll get over it when we stop giving people a pass for the damage they're doing just because they're a corporation.

Flock is just an iteration, and getting rid of that brand won't fix it. And camera tracking of normal citizens is just an iteration -- not the underlying systemic issue that isn't being addressed.

The EU has GDPR. At this point, I want something stronger than that.

So, yes, I can buy a phone that I can mostly control (at the risk of losing access to some draconian apps). But most devices being sold don't allow consumer control.

That community is where open source tech tends to come from.

A company selling me widgets wouldn't store or let another company store extra information about me if it subjected them the widget seller to HIPAA. Or better yet, something more stringent.

We don't need the government to be antagonistic toward corporations; we just need a government that makes the corporations internalize the risk they're making us take.

[1] The fact that ToS are enforceable when every court in the country knows that only a vanishly small percentage of people ever read them, much less understand them, means that they're not doing their job.

I agree with this.

I'm a civil servant and I know (personally; my work is nowhere near the labs) a number of people who work or have worked in that weird contracting DOE/DOD structure that includes the labs.

The difference I've seen is far more from the nature of work rather than the employment details.